Advertisement

Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 1489–1499 | Cite as

Stability analysis of real-time hybrid simulation in consideration of time delays of actuator and shake table using delay differential equations

  • Mostafa NasiriEmail author
  • Ali Safi
Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Real-time hybrid simulation evaluates the response of a structure in real time. In this study, a building with multi-story structure is divided into numerical and experimental substructures, and the vibration behavior of the experimental story is studied among the real-time simulation of the other stories. For applying the effect of static and inertial forces produced by the other stories to the experimental story, an electrohydraulic actuator and a shake table are used, respectively. The dynamics of the electrohydraulic actuator and the shake table can be estimated entirely by time delays, and these delays in the loop of simulation can reduce accuracy and cause system instability. Therefore, a delayed differential equation is used to determine the critical time delays depending on the system parameters. Results of simulation show the effect of non-dimensional parameters and time delays on the stability margin of hybrid simulation.

Keywords

Real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) Hydraulic actuator Shake table Time delay Stability Delayed differential equation (DDE) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    V. Saouma and M. Sivaselvan, Hybrid Simulation: Theory, Implementation and Applications, CRC Press (2014).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Wallace, D. Wagg and S. Neild, An adaptive polynomial based forward prediction algorithm for multi-actuator realtime dynamic substructuring, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 461(2064) (2005) 3807–3826.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J.-Y. Tu, W.-D. Hsiao and C.-Y. Chen, Modelling and control issues of dynamically substructured systems: Adaptive forward prediction taken as an example, Proc. R. Soc. A, 470(2168) (2014) 20130773.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    H. Zhou, D. J. Wagg and M. Li, Equivalent force control combined with adaptive polynomial-based forward prediction for real-time hybrid simulation, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 24(11) (2017) e2018.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Reinhorn, M. Sivaselvan, S. Weinreber and X. Shao, Real-time dynamic hybrid testing of structural systems, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, No. 1644 (2004).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Gawthrop, D. Virden, S. Neild and D. Wagg, Emulator-based control for actuator-based hardware-in-the-loop testing, Control Engineering Practice, 16(8) (2008) 897–908.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    T. Horiuchi and T. Konno, A new method for compensating actuator delay in real-time hybrid experiments, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 359(1786) (2001) 1893–1909.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Y. Jung and P. B. Shing, Performance evaluation of a real-time pseudodynamic test system, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(7) (2006) 789–810.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Chen and J. M. Ricles, Improving the inverse compensation method for real-time hybrid simulation through a dual compensation scheme, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 38(10) (2009) 1237–1255.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. E. Carrion and B. F. Spencer Jr., Model-based Strategies for Real-time Hybrid Testing, 1940–9826, Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2007).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. Chen and J. M. Ricles, Tracking error-based servohydraulic actuator adaptive compensation for real-time hybrid simulation, Journal of Structural Engineering, 136(4) (2010) 432–440.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    X. Gao, N. Castaneda and S. J. Dyke, Real time hybrid simulation: from dynamic system, motion control to experimental error, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(6) (2013) 815–832.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Ou, A. I. Ozdagli, S. J. Dyke and B. Wu, Robust integrated actuator control: Experimental verification and realtime hybrid-simulation implementation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44(3) (2015) 441–460.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    B. M. Phillips, S. Takada, B. Spencer and Y. Fujino, Feedforward actuator controller development using the backward-difference method for real-time hybrid simulation, Smart Structures and Systems, 14(6) (2014) 1081–1103.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    N. M. Newmark, A method of computation for structural dynamics, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 85(3) (1959) 67–94.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    B. Wu, G. Xu, Q. Wang and M. S. Williams, Operator-splitting method for real-time substructure testing, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(3) (2006) 293–314.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    D. Combescure and P. Pegon, α-Operator splitting time integration technique for pseudodynamic testing error propagation analysis, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 16(7–8) (1997) 427–443.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S.-Y. Chang, Explicit pseudodynamic algorithm with unconditional stability, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(9) (2002) 935–947.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    B. Wu, Q. Wang, P. B. Shing and J. Ou, Equivalent force control method for generalized real-time substructure testing with implicit integration, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(9) (2007) 1127–1149.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    C. Chen and J. M. Ricles, Development of direct integration algorithms for structural dynamics using discrete control theory, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 134(8) (2008) 676–683.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Y. Gui, J.-T. Wang, F. Jin, C. Chen and M.-X. Zhou, Development of a family of explicit algorithms for structural dynamics with unconditional stability, Nonlinear Dynamics, 77(4) (2014) 1157–1170.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Chung and G. Hulbert, A time integration algorithm for structural dynamics with improved numerical dissipation: The generalized-α method, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 60(2) (1993) 371–375.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    C. Kolay, J. M. Ricles, T. M. Marullo, A. Mahvashmohammadi and R. Sause, Implementation and application of the unconditionally stable explicit parametrically dissipative KR-α method for real-time hybrid simulation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44(5) (2015) 735–755.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    M. Ahmadizadeh, G. Mosqueda and A. Reinhorn, Compensation of actuator delay and dynamics for real-time hybrid structural simulation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(1) (2008) 21–42.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. Darby, M. Williams and A. Blakeborough, Stability and delay compensation for real-time substructure testing, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(12) (2002) 1276–1284.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    B. Wu, Z. Wang and O. S. Bursi, Actuator dynamics compensation based on upper bound delay for real-time hybrid simulation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(12) (2013) 1749–1765.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    P. Shi, B. Wu, B. F. Spencer Jr., B. M. Phillips and C. M. Chang, Real-time hybrid testing with equivalent force control method incorporating Kalman filter, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 23(4) (2016) 735–748.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    T. Horiuchi, M. Inoue, T. Konno and Y. Namita, Real-time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation and its application to a piping system with energy absorber, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 28(10) (1999) 1121–1141.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    M. Wallace, J. Sieber, S. Neild, D. Wagg and B. Krauskopf, Stability analysis of real-time dynamic substructuring using delay differential equation models, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 34(15) (2005) 1817–1832.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Y. Kyrychko, K. Blyuss, A. Gonzalez-Buelga, S. Hogan and D. Wagg, Real-time dynamic substructuring in a coupled oscillator-pendulum system, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 462(2068) (2006) 1271–1294.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    O. Mercan and J. M. Ricles, Stability analysis for real-time pseudodynamic and hybrid pseudodynamic testing with multiple sources of delay, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(10) (2008) 1269–1293.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    F. Chi, J. Wang and F. Jin, Delay-dependent stability and added damping of SDOF real-time dynamic hybrid testing, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 9(3) (2010) 425–438.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    R. M. Botelho and R. E. Christenson, Robust stability and performance analysis for multi-actuator real-time hybrid substructuring, Dynamics of Coupled Structures, Springer, 4 (2015) 1–7.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    C. Chen and J. M. Ricles, Stability analysis of SDOF real-time hybrid testing systems with explicit integration algorithms and actuator delay, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(4) (2008) 597–613.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    F. Zhu, J. T. Wang, F. Jin, F. D. Chi and Y. Gui, Stability analysis of MDOF real-time dynamic hybrid testing systems using the discrete-time root locus technique, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44(2) (2015) 221–241.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    A. Maghareh, S. J. Dyke, A. Prakash and G. B. Bunting, Establishing a predictive performance indicator for real-time hybrid simulation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 43(15) (2014) 2299–2318.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    A. Maghareh, S. Dyke, S. Rabieniaharatbar and A. Prakash, Predictive stability indicator: a novel approach to configuring a real-time hybrid simulation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 46(1) (2017) 95–116.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    M. Paz, Structural Dynamics: Theory and Computation, Springer Science & Business Media (2012).Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    P. Gawthrop, M. Wallace, S. Neild and D. Wagg, Robust real-time substructuring techniques for under-damped systems, Structural Control and Health Monitoring: The Official Journal of the International Association for Structural Control and Monitoring and of the European Association for the Control of Structures, 14(4) (2007) 591–608.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    J. Zhao, C. French, C. Shield and T. Posbergh, Considerations for the development of real-time dynamic testing using servo-hydraulic actuation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 32(11) (2003) 1773–1794.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© KSME & Springer 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentGolpayegan University of TechnologyGolpayegan, IsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations